Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

coq-club - Re: [Coq-Club] Notation with "Type"

coq-club AT inria.fr

Subject: The Coq mailing list

List archive

Re: [Coq-Club] Notation with "Type"


chronological Thread 
  • From: Guillaume Brunerie <guillaume.brunerie AT gmail.com>
  • To: Mehdi Dogguy <mehdi AT dogguy.org>
  • Cc: coq-club AT inria.fr
  • Subject: Re: [Coq-Club] Notation with "Type"
  • Date: Wed, 8 Jun 2011 18:49:13 +0200
  • Domainkey-signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc:content-type; b=SUzkjSpFUc3St0kbbFpo0eaYE4ZSofjl7xNAtnC+szhaTh8mWH2Lu6Jrxdoohz3c96 5d1oVzrmrKKpW9092mqFfi9ZMp7JB/i7rMkqmcBo4RPEuah6CtMOsZ2vR7w4Ova0XePn mJ2R8D8uRNPxkgym/1AM/kaDn5ZhYcU7fe75E=

2011/6/8 Mehdi Dogguy <mehdi AT dogguy.org>
On 08/06/2011 17:03, Guillaume Brunerie wrote:
> The following does not work as expected:
>
> Parameter f : Type -> Type.
>> Notation s := (f Type).
>> Check s.
>>
>

I could be wrong but isn't "Definition s := f Type" enough for your needs?
(why do you need Notation?)

Indeed, but in my case what I actually want is "Notation "#s" := (f Type)", because this term has a special meaning and I want to distinguish it from the other identifiers in the script.
I could have written "Definition  __s := (f Type)", or something like that, but I find "#s" prettier than "__s" (and I need "Notation" for that).


Guillaume



Archive powered by MhonArc 2.6.16.

Top of Page